Citizen Sailer

I have already critiqued Steve Sailer’s idea of “citizenism” but, although I do not wish to start blogging again on a regular basis, I note that Sailer once again has been promoting this viciously destructive idea - this time in The American Conservative.  Therefore, I have a few more things to say on this issue.

Sailer is illogical or he is mendacious.  He states that Taylor’s white nationalism is doomed because white Americans are non-tribalistic individualists, and then he himself recommends his own form of tribalism - a collective group identity as “American citizens”.  Very well, but if white Americans are so individualistic that a collective group identity based on actual biological kinship is doomed to fail, then why should a collective tribal identity based on the legalistic fiction of citizenship succeed?

Further, Sailer asserts that “citizenism” would entail a degree of personal self-sacrifice (see below).  White individualists will sacrifice for the American tribe - which includes guys like Sharpton - but not for their own white tribe.  In other words, tribalism for whites is bad or “impossible”, except for the type of tribalism promoted by Sailer.

For all his a-racial tribalism, and his assertions that the identity of the white tribe in question is too fuzzy to be understood, Sailer himself has no problem identifying white Americans when he wishes to talk about them and make his points; he even includes himself in this “mysterious” group with the phrase, “we white Americans”.  And, of course, “citizenism” suffers from the same problem of “set definition”.  Should the children of illegal aliens be considered co-citizens?  Anchor babies?  There are, in fact, some who wish to do away with automatic birthright citizenship.  Would a white conservative really consider Sharpton their fellow co-citizen?  All forms of human identification can suffer from the same problems.  A legally defined identity is the most fluid and changeable of all.

Both forms of tribalism – racial and legally defined - are possible, and are in competition.  Because Sailer favors his a-racial form of tribalism - for reasons other than practicality - he tries to deflate advocates of the competition by telling them that their version is somehow impossible.  And yet, if it is so impossible, why do Sailer and his ilk spend so much time attacking it?

Sailer also asserts that a dooming paradox for Jared Taylor is that white Americans want to behave like white Americans (i.e., as non-“racist” individualists), not like the rest of the world (i.e, as ethnocentrists).  This ignores the fact that white Americans were indeed much more “racist” in the past than they are today, and even today whites wish to flee from the diversity they may pay lip service to.  And this ignores the fact that whites’ current racial passivity is being, to a large extent, imposed from above, by the repression and propaganda of the establishment.  If Sailer is such a fan of the free market, why don’t we have a free market approach to race, and let people decide what they wish to do without relentless media brainwashing and de facto limits on free speech?  In ‘The Occidental Quarterly’, Dr. Kevin MacDonald wrote:

Rubin retains the faith of a social engineer that ethnic conflict can be prevented by social pricing in which European ethnic consciousness is priced out of the market by, for example, enforcing economic sanctions (job loss, social ostracism) on ethnically conscious European-Americans. Much of this social pricing is, of course, already in place, but it remains to be seen how effective social pricing will remain as European-Americans are increasingly excluded from political and economic power. In the contemporary U.S., this social pricing does not apply to other ethnic groups which are encouraged to have strong ethnic identification—La Raza, Kwanzaa, and the major ongoing effort in Jewish communities to raise Jewish ethnic consciousness, prevent intermarriage, and rally support for Israel as a Jewish ethnostate.

Indeed, developing a strong ethnic consciousness is a common feature of the multitude of ethnic studies departments at universities. Having an ethnic consciousness is a critical asset for the many jobs created throughout the government, the universities, and the private sector which minister to the needs of particular ethnic groups…Obviously ethnic conflict does not pay if enormous costs are imposed by law, as in the costs currently imposed on ethnic consciousness among European-Americans. But what about a free market situation—that is, a situation in which the state does not influence the cost structure of discrimination and conflict, and in particular refrains from imposing punishment for these things? It is important to think about this type of situation because the social costs currently imposed on ethnic consciousness among European-Americans may be altered unpredictably in the future. It is therefore of great theoretical interest to determine how ethnic groups can maximize their interests in the modern world.

So, Steve, let’s say we get rid of this “social pricing” and move toward a “free market” system of ethnic/racial relations.  Why not?  Have you the confidence that “idealistic” white Americans – those who engage in white flight and cover up the reasons for it because of said “social pricing” – will value their “fellow citizens” in a free market ethnic scenario?  Don’t you support full freedom of choice and of expression?

At this point, I summarize: both white nationalism and “citizenism” are possible alternative directions that white Americans can pursue.  Contrary to Sailer, white nationalism is not impossible.  However, in the current sociopolitical context“citizenism”  is somewhat more likely to attract a greater number of whites.  Why?  Two reasons:-

a) The establishment is most hostile to expressions of racial identity and racial solidarity by European (ie, white) Americans.  Thus, establishment repression - which includes “social pricing” and, in Europe and Canada, overt legal repression - is directed toward white nationalism.  It is scarcely likely to be directed toward the a-racial creed of “citizenism”, that being a sort of like Constitutional Patriotism stripped of ideals.  Since “citizenism” is “easier” and “safer” (because the establishment realizes it is a dead-end for white interests), it is therefore more attractive.  But in a free market this would not hold.

b) Whites are, in general, less ethnocentric than non-whites (see below), and thus in some cases “citizenism” may be more palatable (compared to white nationalism) to particularly suggestible whites who have trouble articulating racial interests.  B), however, may be partially influenced by the problem discussed by A).

While “citizenism” may be easier to achieve than white nationalism, it is less so than its alternatives.  If one believes that white Americans are not as idealistic as Sailer asserts, then selfish, atomized individualism will out compete “citizenism” among whites.  If Sailer is right, and whites are idealists, then the Proposition Nation – which Sailer attacks – will win out.

For all its faults, Propositionism at least provides some ideals around which to build a national identity and, presumably, appeals to “idealists”.  All Sailer has to offer is a legally defined status of “citizens”- nothing more.  As we shall see below, “citizenism” is stripped of all characteristics of identity, except for a legally-defined identity which may appeal to whites for a short while, but will most likely suffer from a lack of staying power in the battle-arena of ideas and peoples.

Thus, the atomized individual may reject “citizenism” because “who cares about the other guy” and the idealist may reject “citizenism” because they will value non-citizens who share their ideals more than co-citizens who do not.

So, even though “citizenism” is a bit easier to achieve in the context of anti-white “social pricing” and other forms of repression, it is still significantly more difficult to achieve than selfish individualism and Propositionism, among other competitors in the marketplace of ideas.  To achieve “citizenism”will take considerable time and effort – from a white perspective all for naught, because nothing lasting will be achieved.

White nationalism is more difficult, perhaps, but can actually give a lasting payoff.  I’ll briefly consider this issue in the remainder of this essay.  Here I assume that we are able to convince whites to be good citizenists.  So what is the likely outcome?

Sailer’s stockholder analogy fails because the real analogy would be a company in which a minority group of stockholders is trying to wrest control of the company from the current majority shareholders, and the minority is organized in this endeavor, and the majority atomized and passive.  The minority will never change.  So if the majority takes Sailer’s advice they will see their shares in the company that is America diminished.  Only whites will follow citizenism, and if “white Americans act like white Americans” they’ll see themselves out-competed by the ethnocentric.  Sailer’s advice of unilateral white surrender in the game of ethnic competition is the paradox of his plan.  Citizenism is evolutionarily stable only in a homogenous nation, or at least, in one in which all peoples are equally non-ethnocentric. 

From Sailer’s own work about Drew Fraser, we read:

Fraser argues:-

“This exposes a fundamental paradox built into the free and open societies of the West: The only racial groups able to fit seamlessly into the society of strangers constituting a civic nation are those whose members can easily shed the deeply-ingrained ethnocentrism and xenophobia characterizing most non-European peoples.”

Sailer then states:-

For example, the extended family values of Asian newcomers often serve them well economically in English-speaking countries. But they can place a burden on the host country’s civic virtues. Fraser argues, borrowing from Amy Chua’s book World on Fire”:-

“At the high end of Australia’s immigrant intake, a growing cognitive elite of East Asians threatens to become similar to ‘market-dominant minorities’ such as the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa. Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned: Western-style ‘old boy’ preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and, thus, permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or ‘ethnic nepotism’ practiced by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians.”

Sailer himself then states about this overall situation: “… making us suckers for self-sacrificing ideologies that more clannish immigrants laugh at.”

Indeed, and “citizenism” is exactly the sort of self-sacrificing ideology that is laughed at by non-whites.  In his ‘The American Conservative’ essay Sailer states:-

If you want to win at American politics, you need a moral theory. Fortunately, there is a concept that is both more practical and more attractive to American idealism than either liberal “multiculturalism” or neoconservative “propositionism.” I call it “citizenism” because it affirms that true patriots and idealists are willing to make sacrifices for the overall good of their fellow American citizens rather than for the advantage of either six billion foreigners or of the special interests within our own country. The notion is sensible, its appeal broad. Yet it has seldom been explicitly articulated.

Yeah, Steve, a broad appeal to whom?  Whites only?  Once again, remember Sailer’s own words: “… making us suckers for self-sacrificing ideologies …”  And it will not only be “clannish immigrants” who laugh at us, but all of the ethnocentric groups in America who will each continue to pursue their own group ethnic interests while deluded whites sacrifice for “the overall good of their fellow American citizens.”  Suckers, indeed!

Of course, there is the ultimate issue of genetic interests that argues against Citizenism.  Two Chinamen may be fellow citizens but the loss of a genetic “child equivalent” occurs nonetheless.  It is interesting that while Sailer will spend time writing up Frank Salter’s work on bar-room bouncers he has heretofore essentially ignored Salter’s most important work, On Genetic Interests.  Is that because genetic interests argue against “citizenism”?

Sailer’s disregard, or lack of understanding, of Salter’s concepts can be seenhere.  His only stated genetic concern about immigration is the “potential” of the peoples involved; that is, whether they possess certain heritable phenotypic traits.  By analogy, would Sailer replace his own children with those of others if these others had more genetic potential in sets of traits Sailer views as valuable?  I think not.  Adaptive genetic interests are of course important, but they should complement, not replace, the larger subset of kinship genetic interests.  A group has inherent value in itself, in its own genetic kinship with members, independent of how they or others rank that group on some hierarchy of valued traits.

Lawrence Auster argues for a more cultural and civilizational stand against “citizenism”.  Although Salter’s work demonstrates that Auster is incorrect in pointing at ‘bioreductive materialism’ as the problem, nonetheless a focus on cultural issues also undermines Sailer’s “citizenism”.  In the so-called “clash of civilizations”, co-citizens derived from different civilizational origins are a problem, a liability, a source of social discord, a potential “fifth column”, and we need not overlook all of this merely because of a legally defined status of “citizenship”.  How are all those North African and sub-Saharan African “French citizens” doing?  Waiting for the next riot?  Civil war?  How is America truly different? 

Indeed, Francis Parker Yockey’s passionate invocation of the West in his book Imperium and elsewhere reminds us that there are important and fundamental cultural/civilizational issues that cannot be swept under the woolly rug of “citizenism”.  Once we strip identity of race, culture, and even Propositionism, what do we have left?  Sailer tells us what we have left is that we are all citizens of the same nation, analogous to stockholders.  This is just an empty, legally-defined condition.  Today, anyone born on American soil is a citizen, tomorrow a law may be passed outlawing such “birthright citizenship.”  What changes?  Is a congressional bill something that can or should influence “idealism”?  For reasons stated above, a significant number of whites may well be tempted to go along with “citizenism” (until they are disillusioned by non-white ethnocentrism) and escape the onus of “racism”.  But to what end?  Isn’t this pursuit of an illusory “identity” that has no objective basis on blood, history and culture a most tremendous waste of time and effort?

“Citizenism” is a dead-end for white Americans, and for whites anywhere.  It may appeal to some, but at a considerable cost.  The pay-off for their effort will be non-existent because “citizenism” will disarm whites in competition with non-whites equipped by their ethnicentrism to exploit white “citizenist” altruism.  Where is the evidence that non-whites are capable of a disinterested self-sacrifice for racially and culturally dissimilar peoples?  Whites are capable of such sacrifices, yes.  But do we not know by now that it is a weakness that is constantly exploited by non-white free-riders?  Sailer himself seems to realize this, but then ignores the implications when he wishes to promote “citizenism”.

Furthermore, “citizenism” ignores ultimate genetic interests and important proximate cultural and civilizational interests.  Genes and culture combine and synergize to form steep biosocial-biocultural-biocivilizational divides.  Significant differences of interests result between these civilizational blocks - a clash of civilizational interests, if you will.  Well, if one side fights and the other does not, who will win?

Oswald Spengler wrote, “Pacifism will remain an ideal, war a fact, and if the white race decides to wage it no longer, the colored will, and will become the rulers of the world.”

If I may paraphrase that:-

“Citizenism” will remain an ideal, ethnocentrism a fact, and if white Americans decide to practice ethnocentrism no longer, the colored will, and will become the rulers of the nation.”

And when ethnocentric coloreds become the rulers of America, they won’t give “citizenism” a second thought, apart from laughing at the stupidity of the white man for believing in such nonsense.

Sailer’s “citizenism” is a prescription for white defeat.  Don’t buy it.

Posted by JW Holliday on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 at 07:50 AM in The American right
Comments (10) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: Girls vs politicians

Previous entry: Multiculturalism and false concessions